Vatican II


#1

Has any other Church council been as controversial as VII within the first hundred years after the council ended??


#2

Hi Mark,

All of them. The Council of Trent’s


#3

Much like Vatican II, Vatican I resulted in a small schism with a group of “old Catholics” leaving communion. Some great Catholic minds even had problems with the VI council, from Lord Acton to Cardinal Newman and Johann Adam Mohler.

Similarly almost all Councils have had some issues which resulted in controversy, from the Judaism controversy to Jerusalem to the Arian controversy at Nicea to the Waldensian or Spiritual Franciscan controversies in the Lateran Councils.

Controversy is not a sign of problems with the council…infact I would wonder about any council which did not raise some controversy! What the **heck ** did a council do that did not raise some controversy?


#4

Hi Mark,

All of them. For example the prescription of the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Trent on communion to young children were not really applied until Pius X put his foot down in 1910.

See here.

Verbum


#5

I think the Council of Nicaea would qualify as one of the most controversial during and afterward. It would be worth if for anyone to study this time period, in order to understand how God can overcome man’s selfishness and wickedness to further His Will.

Take Care!

Notworthy


#6

[quote=NotWorthy]I think the Council of Nicaea would qualify as one of the most controversial during and afterward. It would be worth if for anyone to study this time period, in order to understand how God can overcome man’s selfishness and wickedness to further His Will.

Take Care!

Notworthy
[/quote]

Definitely. Even after the Council, there were lots of bishops in the East who refused to submit to its canons, for hundreds of years.

Vatican II definitely was not as controversial as the First Council of Nicaea.


#7

[quote=Semper Fi]Definitely. Even after the Council, there were lots of bishops in the East who refused to submit to its canons, for hundreds of years.

Vatican II definitely was not as controversial as the First Council of Nicaea.
[/quote]

I read somewhere that the bishops at Nicaea got into a fist fight.


#8

A Father Roberts, in the late 19th century, foolishly believing that Newtonian physics had disproven geocentrism, made strong arguments that the three declarations of the popes against the theological opinion that the earth moves (and the sun does not), were in fact infallible (especially the Bull of Alexander the VII). He used his mistaken opinion about the proof of science to argue that papal infallibility must be wrong, i.e.,

  1. Infallible statements against movement of earth (and non-movement of sun).

The declarations may not be infallible, but clearly were authoritative.

  1. Newton proved geocentrism wrong.

Clearly mistaken, even today this is untrue.

therefor, papal infallibility is wrong.

Read about it here:

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
[list]
*]Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
*]Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
*]Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
*]Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
[/list]Especially Part III and the supplement.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#9

[quote=JKirkLVNV]I read somewhere that the bishops at Nicaea got into a fist fight.
[/quote]

LOL. Would pay goooooood $ to see that one. On PPV tonight: East Vs West.


#10

[quote=Semper Fi]LOL. Would pay goooooood $ to see that one. On PPV tonight: East Vs West.
[/quote]

Not as exciting as you think. The “Death Cage Match” would not have been invented for another 1600 years.:smiley:

Notworthy


#11

[quote=trth_skr]A Father Roberts, in the late 19th century, foolishly believing that Newtonian physics had disproven geocentrism, made strong arguments that the three declarations of the popes against the theological opinion that the earth moves (and the sun does not), were in fact infallible (especially the Bull of Alexander the VII). He used his mistaken opinion about the proof of science to argue that papal infallibility must be wrong, i.e.,

  1. Infallible statements against movement of earth (and non-movement of sun).

The declarations may not be infallible, but clearly were authoritative.

  1. Newton proved geocentrism wrong.

Clearly mistaken, even today this is untrue.

therefor, papal infallibility is wrong.

Read about it here:

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
[list]
*]Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
*]Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
*]Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
*]Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
[/list]Especially Part III and the supplement.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
[/quote]

Wow. That’s one heck of a primer. Do you have this in an extra-basic work?


#12

[quote=Semper Fi]LOL. Would pay goooooood $ to see that one. On PPV tonight: East Vs West.
[/quote]

You don’t have to go that far - just head over to the Eastern Christianity threads. I do believe Our Lord Himself could come down and make a comment on any of those threads and one of them would break out a mass spectrometer to dispute his comment. East is east and West is west and ne’er the twain shall meet or the more things change the more they remain the same.


#13

[quote=mark a]Wow. That’s one heck of a primer. Do you have this in an extra-basic work?
[/quote]

Here is a good one:

Geocentrism Defended on EWTN’s Q&A Board ~ Sungenis

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#14

I wonder if their is any thread safe from trth_seeker and abcdefg constant anti-evolution geo-centrism arguments.

I am sad to see EWTN host this lunacy. I think this is indicative of why the USCCB has had a couple of run-ins with EWTN and other fringe Catholic groups. God bless the USCCB.


#15

[quote=EtienneGilson]God bless the USCCB.
[/quote]

:rotfl:

I think that needs to be reworded as “God HELP the USCCB.” :rolleyes:


#16

[quote=EtienneGilson]I wonder if their is any thread safe from trth_seeker and abcdefg constant anti-evolution geo-centrism arguments.

I am sad to see EWTN host this lunacy. I think this is indicative of why the USCCB has had a couple of run-ins with EWTN and other fringe Catholic groups. God bless the USCCB.
[/quote]

Don’t leave us hanging, give us the scoop!


#17

[quote=EtienneGilson] I wonder if their is any thread safe from trth_seeker and abcdefg constant anti-evolution geo-centrism arguments.
[/quote]

A lot of “liberals” don’t like truth getrting in the way.

[quote=EtienneGilson] I am sad to see EWTN host this lunacy. I think this is indicative of why the USCCB has had a couple of run-ins with EWTN and other fringe Catholic groups. God bless the USCCB.
[/quote]

I consider EWTN pretty liberal. Shows how different perspectives can be. Father Echert is one of the more positive elements in EWTN.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#18

If you honestly believe EWTN is “pretty liberal” than your views must rest somewhere to the right of Ghangis Khan. I don’t think that even many people on *this * conservative forum would agree with the definition of EWTN as “liberal”. I enjoy many EWTN programs (though we do not get EWTN in Canada) but it is SAD that they honest host such nonsense, as I quoted earlier, it is irrisio infedelium.

Mark a, I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean by ‘the scoop’. If you mean the geocentric information is convincing, please refer to any of the numerous threads in which Philvaz or Gottle of Greer have responded to the issue. The science is outside of my area of interest and expertise but I would suggest Stanley Jaki for a good balanced Catholic perspective. Also Kenneth Miller, Henri de Lubac or Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (who influenced John Paul II (the Great) in some areas) are interesting reads on evolution and science. I seem to recall a television program about Vatican astrologers called “Galileo’s Sons” which was very interesting.

Robert Sungenis seems to be willing to abandon Thomistic philosophy (natural law) to justify a position which is questionable that the magisterium ever held in the first place. The price for **his ** allegiance is far too high. Even Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna noted the rise in “fundamentalism” and the threat it poses to Catholic scholarship, espicially in the United States stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719/

While some people might think that they are better than the Bishops, I think that obedience to them seems to only apply to the ultra-conservative bishops or even schismatic bishops. Last time I checked the USCCB was an authoritative body and I personally enjoy their literature, including especially their book on the 1986 meeting of religion and science with such names as Edward O. Wilson and Dr. Lejeune of Paris present.


#19

[quote=EtienneGilson] …
Mark a, I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean by ‘the scoop’. If you mean the geocentric information is convincing, …

Robert Sungenis seems to be willing to abandon Thomistic philosophy (natural law) to justify a position which is questionable that the magisterium ever held in the first place. The price for **his **allegiance is far too high. Even Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna noted the rise in “fundamentalism” and the threat it poses to Catholic scholarship, espicially in the United States stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719/

While some people might think that they are better than the Bishops, I think that obedience to them seems to only apply to the ultra-conservative bishops or even schismatic bishops. Last time I checked the USCCB was an authoritative body and I personally enjoy their literature, including especially their book on the 1986 meeting of religion and science with such names as Edward O. Wilson and Dr. Lejeune of Paris present.
[/quote]

I think that the “scoop” [the other] Mark wanted was related to how EWTN had a run-in with the USCCB.

Robert Sungenis quotes Aquinas quite often, and I do not think you are right that he has abandoned natural law.

If you feel that the magesterium never held “that” view (i.e., geocentrism), explain this from the Holy office, used by Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII:

Does not sound “questionable” to me. Seems pretty clear. Only modernist meddling, distortion, hand waving, etc., can make that sound unclear.

The Church has not overturned any of the verdicts related to geocentrism. You can read all the modern “literature” you want, but will not find a reversal of the papal declarations. The papal declarations stand above any modern opinions, regardless of how convincing you find them.

This coupled with the fact that science has yet to even demonstrate that the earth moves (in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the universe) makes for an interesting case.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


#20

[quote=EtienneGilson] … Even Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna noted the rise in “fundamentalism” and the threat it poses to Catholic scholarship, espicially in the United States stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719/


[/quote]

I do not see Sungenis mentioned in this paper. Do you have a specific point or points?

Maybe he means the fundamentalists who treat only the current administrations views as orthodox, and reject the past? This is a current form of Catholic fundamentalism (papalotry).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.